Overheating the Earth: High Temperatures Shortened Alaska’s Winter Weather

3 hours ago, John Foote said:

Track sea temperatures too. The ocean is the great buffer for weather, and a heck of a lot of other things. 

Have to love sea level change. Sea /ocean/marine fluids levels has drastically changed throughout the earth's history. The earth's sub surface geology isnt static either, it is dynamic and is always changing affecting many different aspects on planet earth.

So before man caused global warming, climate change, and what not, what caused the oceans and seas to rise, fall and disappear. Major land masses that we know today as our homes, counties, states, countries at one time were under water. Now they are not. Wonder who caused the climate change then? was too much CO2 pumped into the atmosphere that caused the temps to rise so much that oceans and seas across the globe vanished? where did all that water go? didnt it come back down as rain to fill some other places?

LOL , common sense and a non biased review and study of geological history explains the ever changing planet earth!

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, NickW said:

Scotland had 3 km of ice sitting on it during the Ice Age. Now there isn't any so the land mass there is rising - it is called Isostatic adjustment. 

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/glacial-adjustment.html

Camber Castle is in Sussex on the South Coast of England. The answer to that observation is that the harbour silted up giving the apparent distancing of the fort from the sea. 

Same story in the Wash - Villages that were once fishing villages are now several km inland - Terrington St Clements is one notable example. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrington_St_Clement

When you said Scotland is rising, I assumed you meant current events. What CEO said applies. Geophysics rule the land and sea and we have mobile crusts wandering around this planet on a molten core. To pretend this environment is somehow "static", or ever was is irrational.

Mankind's contribution to the global CO2 levels are less than 1% annually, something even NASA admits (albeit only when pressed). So now a thinking person needs to ask what difference 1/250000th makes to the world's climate? I'm holding my breath waiting for a logical answer. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

When you said Scotland is rising, I assumed you meant current events. What CEO said applies. Geophysics rule the land and sea and we have mobile crusts wandering around this planet on a molten core. To pretend this environment is somehow "static", or ever was is irrational.

Mankind's contribution to the global CO2 levels are less than 1% annually, something even NASA admits (albeit only when pressed). So now a thinking person needs to ask what difference 1/250000th makes to the world's climate? I'm holding my breath waiting for a logical answer. 

Scotland is rising now - its called isostatic readjustment. Similar phenomena can be seen wherever thick icesheets were on land. Scandinavia and the Baltic states are notable examples. 

Land masses that have not had 3-6km of ice sitting on them, and assuming they are not subject to another uplift force such as one continent smashing into  another just float on the surface neither rising or sinking. 

Radiative physics is your answer to the second point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2019 at 2:14 PM, ronwagn said:

If it were expanding rapidly you would see a sharp drop in the value of all real estate near the ocean's shores. I will trust my own observations over those of the global warming community. 

60 mm = 6 cm = 2.3622 inches  over 20 years.
conversion table at link below.
 
 
At that rate, people will be willing to tear down old buildings and build new buildings.at higher elevations. 

That is happening in the Houston area. Homes and businesses that have flooded multiple times are no longer allowed to rebuild. Some areas you cannot get insurance anymore. Welome to to the effects of warming oceans and stronger storms a precurser to whats ahead.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Boat said:

That is happening in the Houston area. Homes and businesses that have flooded multiple times are no longer allowed to rebuild. Some areas you cannot get insurance anymore. Welome to to the effects of warming oceans and stronger storms a precurser to whats ahead.

Gee it's almost like the Galveston flood of 1900 never happened…

Was that caused by mule teams' excessive "exhaust"?

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, NickW said:

Scotland is rising now - its called isostatic readjustment. Similar phenomena can be seen wherever thick icesheets were on land. Scandinavia and the Baltic states are notable examples. 

Land masses that have not had 3-6km of ice sitting on them, and assuming they are not subject to another uplift force such as one continent smashing into  another just float on the surface neither rising or sinking. 

Radiative physics is your answer to the second point. 

It's been ten's of thousands of years since Scotland was buried under that much ice. Your claim is it's still rising because the crust just noticed? 

I'm pretty confident I've forgotten more about "Radiative physics" than you've ever known but I'm prepared to be amazed by your personal knowledge. If you're only going to link to the propaganda that is Wikipedia don't bother. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

It's been ten's of thousands of years since Scotland was buried under that much ice. Your claim is it's still rising because the crust just noticed? 

I'm pretty confident I've forgotten more about "Radiative physics" than you've ever known but I'm prepared to be amazed by your personal knowledge. If you're only going to link to the propaganda that is Wikipedia don't bother. 

I never said the 'crust just noticed'. Isostatic rebound effect kicked as the ice sheets retreated 10,000 years ago. Its still rising today. 

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/p/Post-glacial_rebound.htm

 

Resort to insults - slow clap.......🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

When you said Scotland is rising, I assumed you meant current events. What CEO said applies. Geophysics rule the land and sea and we have mobile crusts wandering around this planet on a molten core. To pretend this environment is somehow "static", or ever was is irrational.

Mankind's contribution to the global CO2 levels are less than 1% annually, something even NASA admits (albeit only when pressed). So now a thinking person needs to ask what difference 1/250000th makes to the world's climate? I'm holding my breath waiting for a logical answer. 

Your figures are irrelvant because the cycle you describe is a balanced one. Its the cumulative addition of certain gases that are the issue. 

Mankinds cumulative contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels from the the pre industrial era is approximately 46%

Mankinds cumulative contribution to atmospheric Methane levels from the pre industrial era is approx 350%

Mankinds cumulative contribution to atmospheric N20 from Pre industrial era is approx 30%

Mankind has added an artificial  gas to the atmosphere with a warming potential 5000x that of CO2 per unit of mass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2019 at 12:14 PM, ronwagn said:

If it were expanding rapidly you would see a sharp drop in the value of all real estate near the ocean's shores. I will trust my own observations over those of the global warming community. 

60 mm = 6 cm = 2.3622 inches  over 20 years.
conversion table at link below.
 
 
At that rate, people will be willing to tear down old buildings and build new buildings.at higher elevations. 

Don't forget that a large % of that sea level rise is due to Hudson bay, northern Canada draining out...  https://www.ontariobeneathourfeet.com/sea-level-rise-james-hudson-bay/

What is not shown is the northern section up to Baffin island.  All of that is rising as well.  So, WHERE else is the sea floor rising? Mid atlantic ridge etc, but how much?  We do not know.  WHERE else is the sea floor falling? Every trench, but how much?  We do not know

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

I never said the 'crust just noticed'. Isostatic rebound effect kicked as the ice sheets retreated 10,000 years ago. Its still rising today. 

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/p/Post-glacial_rebound.htm

 

Resort to insults - slow clap.......🙄

You pretend insult? Then you quote a site that right there at the bottom, admits to quoting Wikipedia? Right after I said don't bother? 

If you're a physicist let's hear it. Maybe you can explain "Radiative" to us all. Otherwise I stand by what I said, because I took the courses, did the lab work and invented the equipment to measure what I'm guessing you can pretend you've measured. But I'm willing to be amazed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Your figures are irrelvant because the cycle you describe is a balanced one. Its the cumulative addition of certain gases that are the issue. 

Mankinds cumulative contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels from the the pre industrial era is approximately 46%

Mankinds cumulative contribution to atmospheric Methane levels from the pre industrial era is approx 350%

Mankinds cumulative contribution to atmospheric N20 from Pre industrial era is approx 30%

Mankind has added an artificial  gas to the atmosphere with a warming potential 5000x that of CO2 per unit of mass. 

So you KNOW beyond Any shadow of a doubt Exactly what CO2 levels were in the past. Let me guess, from tree rings? Guaranteed accurate to parts per 20Billion no doubt. If and it's still a big if, mankind's contribution is 1/2 of one percent per year, simple calculus tells us it will double over 140 years. Perhaps that happened, perhaps not. 140 years ago mankind's contribution was unlikely to equal half a percent. So call it 200 years. Any botanist can tell you plants go into CO2 starvation below 250 ppm and the so called magic, perfect level is supposed to be 280???? Really? 

I'm not even going to get into "Radiative", which you've studiously and no doubt with good reason, ignored. Because you might have to acknowledge the highly limited infrared bands CO2 is absorptive in. All three of them. And the logarithmicaly diminishing effect of more CO2 given that those bands have Already absorbed what they could? Wikipedia is not your friend here, they've already fired someone for his "meddling" in climate links. Because this has little to do with science and much to do with coercive politics. I'm sure if you're a good acolyte and genuflect to the new world religion, they'll reward you in the new world order. Or not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget all this whining about CO2 they claimed we were doomed as it was going into the upper atmosphere where there is less water so the CO2 would do the absorption and radiation instead of water....  What did they find... Giant increase in CO2 up high?  OOPSsss no.  So, theory went right into the crapper and disappeared right? 

Nope... they could still claim to "technically" be right as indeed CO2 upper atmosphere concentrations did slightly increase... Then again anyone who isn't brain dead can add up the molecular weight and density of CO2 compared to air and any so called "peer review" should have caught this oh so basic fact which they did not so today we have this massive myth that CO2 is forcing when in fact it is down low in atmosphere.  Then that pesky reading that the SUN output has increased about one watt over same period...   You will note that graphs such as this: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html            and https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/  and then add that global daily HIGH temps have decreased(1998) in all data sets but only daily lows have increased in most sets.  Of course those sets have HEAVILY biased with city data.  Those data sets without city data, mostly show decreasing daily lows as well...  So, the question becomes, how long after the suns output very slightly decreases does the temp of earth follow the trend?  We are finding out now. 

PS: No, hydrocarbons are not running out.  After all we can just vacuum up them off the ocean floor where they get sequestered out of the air to begin with.  The question is ECONOMICS. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2019 at 7:31 AM, rainman said:

Yep. Alaska is breaking records this spring and climate change in the Arctic is happening twice as fast as other places. Climate disruption affects everything from infrastructure to health and safety.

You always call it weather, remember your own rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy the weather is warming up longer.....can ride my Harley lil' longer hehehe 😁

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2019 at 11:09 PM, Ward Smith said:

So you KNOW beyond Any shadow of a doubt Exactly what CO2 levels were in the past. Let me guess, from tree rings? Guaranteed accurate to parts per 20Billion no doubt. If and it's still a big if, mankind's contribution is 1/2 of one percent per year, simple calculus tells us it will double over 140 years. Perhaps that happened, perhaps not. 140 years ago mankind's contribution was unlikely to equal half a percent. So call it 200 years. Any botanist can tell you plants go into CO2 starvation below 250 ppm and the so called magic, perfect level is supposed to be 280???? Really? 

I'm not even going to get into "Radiative", which you've studiously and no doubt with good reason, ignored. Because you might have to acknowledge the highly limited infrared bands CO2 is absorptive in. All three of them. And the logarithmicaly diminishing effect of more CO2 given that those bands have Already absorbed what they could? Wikipedia is not your friend here, they've already fired someone for his "meddling" in climate links. Because this has little to do with science and much to do with coercive politics. I'm sure if you're a good acolyte and genuflect to the new world religion, they'll reward you in the new world order. Or not. 

Nope - CO2 content of Ice Cores are a much better indicator of past atmospheric CO2 Levels. Greenland gives a record over 100,000 years, Antarctica much longer. 

Again you completely miss the point - its the cumulative rise in atmospheric concentration not the fact the natural cycle dwarfs the human input. The natural cycle is fairlybalanced. In contrast taking locked out carbon (fossil carbon) and sticking it in the atmosphere is the main reason for the observed increase. 

As for getting levels below 280ppm where has this come from - your imagination?  The aim to try and stabilise levels  at no higher than 560ppm - not reduce them to preindustrial levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2019 at 5:06 AM, ronwagn said:

You always call it weather, remember your own rule. 

When it goes the other way Drumpf calls it 'global cooling'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NickW said:

Nope - CO2 content of Ice Cores are a much better indicator of past atmospheric CO2 Levels. Greenland gives a record over 100,000 years, Antarctica much longer. 

Again you completely miss the point - its the cumulative rise in atmospheric concentration not the fact the natural cycle dwarfs the human input. The natural cycle is fairlybalanced. In contrast taking locked out carbon (fossil carbon) and sticking it in the atmosphere is the main reason for the observed increase. 

As for getting levels below 280ppm where has this come from - your imagination?  The aim to try and stabilise levels  at no higher than 560ppm - not reduce them to preindustrial levels.

CO2 ice cores presume that 100% of the CO2 in solution stayed there. But CO2 doesn't respond that way TODAY, so why presume it did that in the ancient past? Oh, right, grants and money. Got it. 

Any greenhouse operator knows about CO2 starvation. 

https://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=338

Hide behind "peer reviewed", OK here ya go

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.1998.0198

Apology accepted Nick

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

CO2 ice cores presume that 100% of the CO2 in solution stayed there. But CO2 doesn't respond that way TODAY, so why presume it did that in the ancient past? Oh, right, grants and money. Got it. 

Any greenhouse operator knows about CO2 starvation. 

https://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=338

Hide behind "peer reviewed", OK here ya go

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.1998.0198

Apology accepted Nick

 

Why would I make an apology for a claim I never made and you actually introduced? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

CO2 ice cores presume that 100% of the CO2 in solution stayed there. But CO2 doesn't respond that way TODAY, so why presume it did that in the ancient past? Oh, right, grants and money. Got it. 

Any greenhouse operator knows about CO2 starvation. 

https://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=338

Hide behind "peer reviewed", OK here ya go

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.1998.0198

Apology accepted Nick

 

Ah - the old Greenhouse / horticulture  chestnut. That formula only applies if all other limiting factors are not being met. Raising CO2 without a corresponding increase in the availability of water and micro-nutrients in the wild is not going to give you that response curve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, NickW said:

Ah - the old Greenhouse / horticulture  chestnut. That formula only applies if all other limiting factors are not being met. Raising CO2 without a corresponding increase in the availability of water and micro-nutrients in the wild is not going to give you that response curve. 

CO2 starvation? Check, you acknowledge it isn't "my imagination", then pretend you've "won" by introducing Liebig minimum? I'll wait right here while you Google that, then pretend you already understood it. Meanwhile what's important to 9 billion humans will be the output of agricultural systems, Not food trying to survive "in the wild". Naturally if Greenpeace were in charge, 7 billion would starve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2019 at 9:22 PM, Ward Smith said:

CO2 starvation? Check, you acknowledge it isn't "my imagination", then pretend you've "won" by introducing Liebig minimum? I'll wait right here while you Google that, then pretend you already understood it. Meanwhile what's important to 9 billion humans will be the output of agricultural systems, Not food trying to survive "in the wild". Naturally if Greenpeace were in charge, 7 billion would starve. 

There is no CO2 starvation of plants occuring at 400ppm.

The 'just raise CO2 and you will get a linear increase in food output' really is straight out of the Skool of fickheads remedial class on Biology. 

There is no objective to reduce CO2 levels to pre industrial levels. The Paris and previous climate agreements  aim to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees - this approximately equates to limiting atmospheric CO2 to a ceiling of 560ppm 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

There is no CO2 starvation of plants occuring at 400ppm.

The 'just raise CO2 and you will get a linear increase in food output' really is straight out of the Skool of fickheads remedial class on Biology. 

There is no objective to reduce CO2 levels to pre industrial levels. The Paris and previous climate agreements  aim to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees - this approximately equates to limiting atmospheric CO2 to a ceiling of 560ppm 

 

So now 400 ppm is the "perfect" number? But according to your catechism, it is ALREADY responsible for devastating temperature increase "highest ever!" world temps and rising oceans. Now you're moving the goalposts to 560? Hilarious. 

BTW while you're insulting botanists who have more intelligence in their fingernail clippings than you've managed to demonstrate please note the following, from a government source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Game, set, match

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ward Smith said:

( 4)So now 400 ppm is the "perfect" number? But according to your catechism, (1)it is ALREADY responsible for (2)devastating temperature increase "highest ever!" world temps and rising oceans. (3) Now you're moving the goalposts to 560? Hilarious. 

BTW while you're insulting botanists who have more intelligence in their fingernail clippings than you've managed to demonstrate please note the following, from a government source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

(5) Game, set, match

 

1. Do you make everything up and misread everything. I haven't said any of the things. 

2. Thats where the scientific community fear where we are going to end up. 

3. The 560ppm is  where Climate agreements seek to limit atmospheric CO2 to mitigate the effects of those outlined in point 2.

4. From an agricultural perspective 800ppm ish is probably the optimum depending on the crop (subject to all other limiting factors being met). Of course when you start cooking the planet then any benefit of the extra CO2 is eliminated by other stress factors such as lack of water or that agricultural land is under 5 feet of sea water. 

5.  That zero hour contract at McD's not paying out this Easter holiday weekend? Hard times in the Clown business? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 4/22/2019 at 1:41 PM, NickW said:

 

1. Do you make everything up and misread everything. I haven't said any of the things. 

2. Thats where the scientific community fear where we are going to end up. 

3. The 560ppm is  where Climate agreements seek to limit atmospheric CO2 to mitigate the effects of those outlined in point 2.

4. From an agricultural perspective 800ppm ish is probably the optimum depending on the crop (subject to all other limiting factors being met). Of course when you start cooking the planet then any benefit of the extra CO2 is eliminated by other stress factors such as lack of water or that agricultural land is under 5 feet of sea water. 

5.  That zero hour contract at McD's not paying out this Easter holiday weekend? Hard times in the Clown business? 

I'm not a mind reader. You never once clarify, except in response to a crushing argument. All my arguments are crushing to you, you [editing for violating community guidelines] quickly Google for responses. Since you rush to hyperbole in all your statements it's clear you're no scientist, so why bother engaging with you? Are you paid by the word or the post by one of the Soros shadow organizations? The "scientific" community? Lol funny that one. You meant to say the community of like minded parasites sucking on the teat of government grants and handouts, pretending the sky is falling to fatten their next paycheck. 

Edited by Rodent
violation of community guidelines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites